The Court of Appeal has annulled the ruling of the Basic Court in Prizren, returning for reconsideration the issue of ordering pre-trial detention against D.Sh., JH, SB, AL, QK, AV, FL, MH, and GP, suspected of vote manipulation in Prizren.
Through the decision taken on February 4, 2026, the Appeal has partially approved as grounded the appeals of the defense of the defendants: D.Sh., JH, SB, AL, QK, FL, MJ, and GP, lawyers: Rinard Pulaj, Blerim Mazreku, Muhamet Shalaj, Hysen Gashi, Kushtrim Muqaj, Bekim Parallangaj, Xhelil Elshani and Valon Kabashi, reports "Oath for Justice".
According to the Appeal, the defendants remain under detention until a new decision is made.
The Appeals Court decision states that on January 24, the Basic Court ordered the detention of the defendants: D.Sh., JH, SB, AL, QK, AV, FL, MJ, and GP.
The following lawyers had filed an appeal against this ruling: Rinard Pulaj, Blerim Mazreku, Muhamet Shalaj, Hysen Gashi, Kushtrim Muqaj, Bekim Parallangaj, Xhelil Elshani and Valon Kabashi.
D.Sh.'s lawyer, Rinard Pulaj, had filed a complaint due to the violation of the right to liberty and security guaranteed by the Constitution, the violation of procedural provisions that guarantee respect for the law and errors in the facts, which resulted in erroneous findings by the court regarding the claims for fulfillment of the conditions for ordering detention.
The defense had proposed that the appealed decision be amended and that the detention measure be replaced with a more lenient measure.
JH's defense attorney, attorney Blerim Mazreku, had filed an appeal on all grounds of appeal, proposing to the Court of Appeal that his client's detention be terminated and that he be released, or that it be replaced with a more lenient measure.
AL's defense attorney, attorney Hysen Gashi, had filed a complaint due to the violation of the legal provisions of the KPCK, proposing that his client be assigned a more lenient measure, such as reporting to the police station.
SB's defense attorney, lawyer Muhamet Shalaj, had filed an appeal due to fundamental violations of the provisions of criminal procedure, erroneous and incomplete determination of the factual situation and violation of the provisions of the Criminal Code, with a proposal to terminate SB's detention.
F.Ll.'s lawyer, Bekim Parallangaj, also filed an appeal on the grounds of the right to liberty and security guaranteed by the Constitution, the violation of procedural provisions that guarantee respect for the law and errors in the facts, which resulted in erroneous findings by the court regarding the claims for fulfilling the conditions for ordering detention. He proposed that the appealed decision be annulled or that detention be replaced with an alternative measure.
QK's defense attorney, attorney Kushtrim Muqaj, had filed an appeal due to the incorrect application of the provisions of the CPCRK, proposing to amend the appealed decision, terminate his detention or replace it with an alternative measure such as reporting to the police station.
GP's defense attorney, lawyer Valon Kabashi, had also filed a complaint due to fundamental violations of the provisions of criminal procedure, proposing that his client be ordered to appear at the police station.
And MJ's defense attorney, lawyer Xhemil Elshani, had filed an appeal due to the violation of procedural provisions and the incorrect and incomplete verification of the factual situation, proposing that the detention measure be terminated and replaced with the measure of reporting to the police station.
On the other hand, the Appellate Prosecution Office has proposed in a submission that the defense appeals be rejected as unfounded and the appealed decision be upheld.
Appeal Findings:
The Court of Appeal finds that the appealed decision is involved in essential violations of the provisions of criminal procedure, regarding the grounded suspicion, the evidence on which the grounded suspicion is based and the justification for imposing this measure.
According to the Appeal, the preliminary procedure judge in the reasoning of the appealed decision did not provide clear and concrete reasons on the basis of which the well-founded suspicion that the nine defendants have committed the acts they are suspected of, which would also be the legal basis for imposing the measure of detention, would be confirmed. /Oath for Justice/
